Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's because, to expand on the example offered earlier in the thread, most of the commentary goes far beyond expressing a desire to not vote for Obama.

Anti-Obama Guy: I refuse to vote for Obama because he's black.
Pro-Obama Guy: Uh, dude, that's kind of racist.
Anti-Obama Guy: So you're saying everyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist?

Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.

A slightly more intelligent version of the fake outrage is the Sean Hannity/Bill O'Reilly method of complaining about things they "aren't allowed to talk about" with Obama, which amounts to nasty things they've said to which other people have responded. The fact that EVERY election basically consists of that seems lost on them, or more likely they are deliberately ignoring it because it makes a better story.

In other words, the "indignation" over how Obama supporters respond to these attacks would be more interesting if it wasn't so coated in crap. Nobody cares, the OP isn't REALLY looking for an answer, and YOU don't really think every anti-Obama person is being accused of racism. It's a good attack method that's been well pushed by the talking heads of the right, and people copy it because they honestly can't remember the last time they had an original thought about politics. Heaven forbid that conservatives THINK about whether or not Obama's middle name is an issue, just flog it until pro-Obama people hit back and then be sure to whine about it a lot.

Come on guys...intelligent and original commentary turns an election from a teeth grindingly retarded waste of time into a real debate. At the very least you could pick ONE of those things and give it a shot.

Peoples reaction to politics tends to come from an emotional level and you're asking for an intellectual response.

Good luck!

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Vic
Because the only other option is to vote McCain? :confused:

If that were true, I'd be voting for Obama. But I'm not. ;)

I've already explained to you that I cannot and will not vote for Bob Barr. This is a sore subject to me, in fact, how the Deep South George Wallace crowd has taken over the LP.

I didn't say you should. Just that there are actually more than two choices.

WWhere`s Ron whats his name when you need him???
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Because the only other option is to vote McCain? :confused:

Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. First, we don't have any of these 'howling jackal' Obama supporters here. Quite the opposite, all the howling jackal types here are the Obama hating kind, who go daily from one desperate lie to another. Maybe those types of Obama supporters you speak of exist on other sites, in which case you should go complain about them there and not here.
Second, you appear to be a Hillary supporter, but your argument for voting against Obama is based almost entirely off Bill Clinton's record. This makes no sense.

Hah, I think this post just proved the OPs point.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Vic
Because the only other option is to vote McCain? :confused:

Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. First, we don't have any of these 'howling jackal' Obama supporters here. Quite the opposite, all the howling jackal types here are the Obama hating kind, who go daily from one desperate lie to another. Maybe those types of Obama supporters you speak of exist on other sites, in which case you should go complain about them there and not here.
Second, you appear to be a Hillary supporter, but your argument for voting against Obama is based almost entirely off Bill Clinton's record. This makes no sense.

Hah, I think this post just proved the OPs point.
How so?
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Maybe it's because so many of the anti-Obama threads on here are so desperate, ridiculous, and transparently partisan that they don't deserve a response other then a personal attack or a questioning of sanity. For more on this, check the kind of top notch anti-Obama threads that populate the first two pages of P&N.

Considering the moon logic you were using in that other 'Obama's private army' thread, I don't think you're really one to complain about people calling it out.


Right, but I'm a democrat, I've never voted Republican in any election in my life.


Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
I find that most Obama supporters in my age range (18-21) are endowed by him simply over the publicity and easy to follow message his campaign is sending. While the Republicans are no better in my mind, the Democrats are the weakest bunch of them all.

The past two presidential campaigns (and even the piss poor Senate elections in 2006) run by the Democrats had no agenda of itself; they simply bashed the misdoings of the other party, and that's generally enough to gain the favor of the people, whether they get their news from the paper or MTV. This is where most Obama supporters I've met fall short; they can tell you what they don't want, or what they won't do (in the past 8 years under Bush), but not what they want or how they are going to accomplish that. What has the Senate done that it campaigned on in '06? What will Obama do that he campaigns on now?

It's easy to point the finger. And that's enough to secure votes these days.

I remember Poli-sci class I took and the professor had basically said the same thing. Traditionally the Republicans have a 'plan' so to speak. The democrats are a more fractured party that really comes together to oppose what the Republicans are proposing, and they often fall short because they can't come up with anything better. He wasn't bashing either party, just pointing out the facts.
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Robor
In re-reading the OP... Anyone find it odd that a Clinton supporter can't even spell 'Hillary' right? I don't mean to nit-pick but 7x?

I'm re-reading the OP and I can't help but shake the feeling this guy is PJ or one of his cohorts.

and this is nothing but chain-mail spam.

OP- do you disagree that Hillary's and BHO's platform were essentially the same?

I believe that Hillary's platform was more fleshed out though. B. Husein Obama's was mainly a catch phrase: "change!" "yes we can!" etc. I'm not saying they're polar opposites by any means, I just feel that Hill-dog is the more competent of the two, has dealt with adversity, and could actually get something done in office. I think Obama (for the reasons I laid out in the OP) would be an awful enactor of a similar platform to Hillary's. No. You. Can't!


Originally posted by: AAjax
I would agree, look to the replies to such threads. They almost always steer clear of the subject at hand and end up being a personal attack or critique on any detractors sanity.
My biggest worry about him is that he is a great speaker, who's words don't seem to deeply entrenched at best and deceitful at worst.



EXACTLY. He's a good speech reader, but then when you ask someone who's all inspired by him WHAT he stands for they start screaming about how great he is. It doesn't really answer the question.
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.



I'm NOT saying his supporters are scumbags. I'm saying HE'S fake, he's an elitist, he's more republican than people realize, he got an unbelievable bias in the media during the primary season, he's been proven to be a liar, he has no experience with political adversity, and that he's just an all around poor candidate who gets by on his speech reading ability. THEN if you mention ANY negative fact about him, his supporters get deeply offended.

Example:
Girl: Did you vote for Obama?? Isn't he great??
Me: I don't particularly like him, I think he's a bit hollow, he doesn't seem to have a real concrete platform at this point, so I voted for Hillary in our primary?
Girl: WHAT?!?!??! OBAMA'S AWESOME, DON'T YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM OR I WILL BE PISSED


now that was an extreme (but true) example of what it's like dealing with his supporters, but all of my interactions with them come down to something akin to that.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Vic
Because the only other option is to vote McCain? :confused:

Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. First, we don't have any of these 'howling jackal' Obama supporters here. Quite the opposite, all the howling jackal types here are the Obama hating kind, who go daily from one desperate lie to another. Maybe those types of Obama supporters you speak of exist on other sites, in which case you should go complain about them there and not here.
Second, you appear to be a Hillary supporter, but your argument for voting against Obama is based almost entirely off Bill Clinton's record. This makes no sense.

Hah, I think this post just proved the OPs point.
How so?

It didn't. Corbett is just a hack.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.

I'm NOT saying his supporters are scumbags. I'm saying HE'S fake, he's an elitist, he's more republican than people realize, he got an unbelievable bias in the media during the primary season, he's been proven to be a liar, he has no experience with political adversity, and that he's just an all around poor candidate who gets by on his speech reading ability. THEN if you mention ANY negative fact about him, his supporters get deeply offended.

Example:
Girl: Did you vote for Obama?? Isn't he great??
Me: I don't particularly like him, I think he's a bit hollow, he doesn't seem to have a real concrete platform at this point, so I voted for Hillary in our primary?
Girl: WHAT?!?!??! OBAMA'S AWESOME, DON'T YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM OR I WILL BE PISSED


now that was an extreme (but true) example of what it's like dealing with his supporters, but all of my interactions with them come down to something akin to that.

You realize that a candidate's supporters are not the candidate themselves, right?

This is what WHAMPOM meant when he said you have a raging case of transference.
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.

I'm NOT saying his supporters are scumbags. I'm saying HE'S fake, he's an elitist, he's more republican than people realize, he got an unbelievable bias in the media during the primary season, he's been proven to be a liar, he has no experience with political adversity, and that he's just an all around poor candidate who gets by on his speech reading ability. THEN if you mention ANY negative fact about him, his supporters get deeply offended.

Example:
Girl: Did you vote for Obama?? Isn't he great??
Me: I don't particularly like him, I think he's a bit hollow, he doesn't seem to have a real concrete platform at this point, so I voted for Hillary in our primary?
Girl: WHAT?!?!??! OBAMA'S AWESOME, DON'T YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM OR I WILL BE PISSED


now that was an extreme (but true) example of what it's like dealing with his supporters, but all of my interactions with them come down to something akin to that.

You realize that a candidate's supporters are not the candidate themselves, right?

This is what WHAMPOM meant when he said you have a raging case of transference.

But look at what I'm saying about the candidate...I'm saying he's awful, and his supporters are overzealous and lack a logical basis for their arguments.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: DomS
But look at what I'm saying about the candidate...I'm saying he's awful, and his supporters are overzealous and lack a logical basis for their arguments.
But you've provided no support for your "he's awful" assertions beyond your own opinions, and I fail to see how a few overzealous supporters reflect negatively on a candidate themselves. In fact, I could easily argue that you are being exactly the same as a Hillary supporter.
Look, Hillary lost because the Clintons and the DLC already had their 8 years. Get over it.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.

I'm NOT saying his supporters are scumbags. I'm saying HE'S fake, he's an elitist, he's more republican than people realize, he got an unbelievable bias in the media during the primary season, he's been proven to be a liar, he has no experience with political adversity, and that he's just an all around poor candidate who gets by on his speech reading ability. THEN if you mention ANY negative fact about him, his supporters get deeply offended.

Example:
Girl: Did you vote for Obama?? Isn't he great??
Me: I don't particularly like him, I think he's a bit hollow, he doesn't seem to have a real concrete platform at this point, so I voted for Hillary in our primary?
Girl: WHAT?!?!??! OBAMA'S AWESOME, DON'T YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM OR I WILL BE PISSED


now that was an extreme (but true) example of what it's like dealing with his supporters, but all of my interactions with them come down to something akin to that.

You realize that a candidate's supporters are not the candidate themselves, right?

This is what WHAMPOM meant when he said you have a raging case of transference.
That, and the OP believes that Hillary's platform was more "fleshed out." Whatever that means...

Hillary pandered as much if not moreso than Obama did. Gas tax anyone? One cannot say Obama is hollow and "fake" and believe that HRC wasn't. That's just biased hackery. We are talking about POLITICIANS here people.

Hillary is a bonefide LIAR too...and was caught lying on more than one occasion during the primary season.

Obama is a politican from Chicago...I think he might know a little something about adversity.

As for speeches. Hillary was good too, if you take away the robotic monotone. In debates though, I will admit I was impressed with her. Its just that Obama is better...why hold that against him?

As for media bias? HELLLL NO. Hillary had this whole election WRAPPED UP and LOCKED DOWN. The media had her coronation all planned out. Obama came on the scene and rocked the country. He won 11 primaries in a row, everybody loves a winner...his strategy worked. Its cause and effect people, Obama deserved the media attention (the same way he deserves it now) because he makes money for the media. the media didn't create Obama's celebrity status...Obama did. Now the media is just cashing in.

I hate to say it but this whole election really should open everyone's eyes to see that it is a popularity contest. McCain has a snowballs chance in hell.

Obama's support base is sooo huge you are somewhat correct in saying that some supporters are overzealous (the same can be said for any candidate on both sides.) But not all supporters fit into that catagory. Once you make those types of generalities you are going to get called out on it and shotdown. there are plenty of logical reasons to be behind Obama. And you will find that most liberal supporters on this board use logic to form their opinions.
 

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
Speaking of Obama in Chicago...

Barack Obama ran as a New Party candidate for his State Senate seat in Illinois in 1996. This has largely been purged from the public record, but was discovered by blogger ?Oxy Moran,? proprietor of ObamaWTF. He found an internet archive from The Columbus Free Press, a far left wing oracle, commenting on the successes of the ?New Party? in the 1996 elections.

aaand then

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?"

Jackson/Long writing in Chicago Tribune 4/3/07 about an interview with Gha-is Askia a Democrat for State Senator in 1996 who was disqualified after Obama challenged the validity of her signatures. This was the same election when he got Alice Palmer disqualified on the same grounds
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: DomS
Speaking of Obama in Chicago...

Barack Obama ran as a New Party candidate for his State Senate seat in Illinois in 1996. This has largely been purged from the public record, but was discovered by blogger ?Oxy Moran,? proprietor of ObamaWTF. He found an internet archive from The Columbus Free Press, a far left wing oracle, commenting on the successes of the ?New Party? in the 1996 elections.

aaand then

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?"

Jackson/Long writing in Chicago Tribune 4/3/07 about an interview with Gha-is Askia a Democrat for State Senator in 1996 who was disqualified after Obama challenged the validity of her signatures. This was the same election when he got Alice Palmer disqualified on the same grounds

Oh. You mean where Palmer decided to run for the US Congress, supported Obama for the State Senate, came in third in the Congressional primary, tried to talk Obama into resigning and when that failed tried to petition her way onto the ballot in 2 weeks?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: DomS
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Of course it's a little more involved than that, but not much more. The problem is that much of the anti-Obama rhetoric (including the OP in this very thread, I might add) is extremely nasty, even for election year politics, and frequently attacks Obama supporters as delusional scumbags. Which is fine, I guess, if that's your idea of high minded political debate. But to pretend shock and outrage when Obama supporters don't react too kindly to those attacks is just retarded.



I'm NOT saying his supporters are scumbags. I'm saying HE'S fake, he's an elitist, he's more republican than people realize, he got an unbelievable bias in the media during the primary season, he's been proven to be a liar, he has no experience with political adversity, and that he's just an all around poor candidate who gets by on his speech reading ability. THEN if you mention ANY negative fact about him, his supporters get deeply offended.

Example:
Girl: Did you vote for Obama?? Isn't he great??
Me: I don't particularly like him, I think he's a bit hollow, he doesn't seem to have a real concrete platform at this point, so I voted for Hillary in our primary?
Girl: WHAT?!?!??! OBAMA'S AWESOME, DON'T YOU DARE SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT HIM OR I WILL BE PISSED


now that was an extreme (but true) example of what it's like dealing with his supporters, but all of my interactions with them come down to something akin to that.

Hillary had a platform other than same-old, same-old? I must have missed it.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
Originally posted by: DomS
Speaking of Obama in Chicago...

Barack Obama ran as a New Party candidate for his State Senate seat in Illinois in 1996. This has largely been purged from the public record, but was discovered by blogger ?Oxy Moran,? proprietor of ObamaWTF. He found an internet archive from The Columbus Free Press, a far left wing oracle, commenting on the successes of the ?New Party? in the 1996 elections.

aaand then

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?"

Jackson/Long writing in Chicago Tribune 4/3/07 about an interview with Gha-is Askia a Democrat for State Senator in 1996 who was disqualified after Obama challenged the validity of her signatures. This was the same election when he got Alice Palmer disqualified on the same grounds
So, ignore the rest of my post where I say HRC is the same as BHO and provide more FUD?

just admit it, you are out to ATTEMPT at another Obama thrashing thread...the 600th we've had this month...and you aren't getting the results you wanted.

I'm sorry but you are showing us your true colors and you are, in fact, not attempting to enter into an honest discussion. And BTW I am NOT surprised.

Actually to me it looks like you have AT P&N open in one window, and on another window you have your list of Obama "hit pieces" going all the way back to 1996 and possibly beyond. In attempting to smear him as a Presidential candidate.

In the end that is all you are doing.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Have you?
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81

Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Excelsior

Yeah, cause plastic bags are the only oil-derived product we primarily use.

I'm only marginally retarded, they were just the first thing that came to mind. :)

Pretty much look at anything and everything around you and on you. It's all made with oil products.

I'll take that as pro drilling in the US :)



 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Have you?

Are you planning to vote for me?

 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

Have you?

Are you planning to vote for me?

Are you honest? It's a very base question - but you've already been dishonest... so, why ask........
 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
890
153
106
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Tab
Can someone civily explain why they would vote for Obama?

He's a black man who was raised in a middle class family, went to Harvard, rejected working at prestigious law firms ($$$) so he could become a community organizer/activist. Has been a rather successful senator and now has a very good chance of becoming the next president. He's proven himself to be honest and a hard worker.

Now, it's your turn to tell us why you don't want to vote for him, civilly - which you have not done.

He has not proven to be honest...

He rejected prestigious law firms for Chicago politics (more $$$). He served 143 days as a senator before he went on the presidential campaign trail. Is that really considered to be "rather successful"? I'll concede the "hard worker" part.